Smt. Prem Lata Gupta vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7041 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12392/2021

Smt. Prem Lata Gupta S/o Shri Sunil Gupta, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 2-B-6, Sukhadiya Nagar, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department (North), Division-Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sanjeet Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Abhilasha Kumbhat

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Order

11/05/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being

aggrieved with Raw Water Bill (Annexure 9) issued by the

respondents, whereby the respondents raised a demand for

providing water supply facility to the petitioner's fish-farm while

treating it as an industry.

It is stated in the writ petition that the fishery business being

carried out by the petitioner cannot be treated as an industry. The

petitioner has also challenged the action of the respondents of

exorbitantly enhancing water supply charges vide notification

dated 6th May, 2020 (published in Rajasthan Gazette on 14 th May,

2020), whereby amendment in Rule 5(a) of the Rajasthan

Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as

(2 of 3) [CW-12392/2021]

'the Rules of 1955') has been introduced. The action of the

respondent-department of levying water supply charges from

retrospective effect is also under challenge in this writ petition.

So far as the question whether the fishery activities come

within the definition of industry is concerned, this Court in S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.2448/2021 (Bhupendra Singh Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 12th of October, 2001 has held that

the fishery business comes within the purview of industry. The

said judgment passed by the this Court has also been affirmed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In such circumstances, the challenge of the petitioner to the

action of the respondents of treating the fishery business of the

petitioner as industry is not sustainable.

So far as the action of the respondent-department of levying

water supply charges from retrospective effect is concerned,

counsel for the respondents has frankly submitted that the

petitioner has to pay water supply charges as per Rule 5(a) of the

Rules of 1955 (as amended vide Notification dated 6 th of May,

2020, published in Rajasthan Gazatte on 14.5.2020) only from the

date when the amendment was brought into the Rules of 1955 i.e.

14th of May, 2020. It is submitted that the respondent-department

will issue a fresh demand deleting the charges levied

retrospectively.

So far as the challenge of the petitioner to the action of the

respondent-department of exorbitantly enhancing the water

supply charges is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that liberty may be granted to the petitioner to

challenge the Notification dated 06th May, 2020 (published in the

(3 of 3) [CW-12392/2021]

Rajasthan Gazette on 14th May, 2020) by filing a separate writ

petition.

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed with

liberty to the petitioner to challenge the validity of the Notification

dated 06th May, 2020 (published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 14th

May, 2020) before the appropriate forum.

The stay petition is also dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 4-Babulal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)